Case law

Jackman v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States

145 F.2d 945 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 29, 1944

Thus was the intention of the settlor clearly and unambiguously stated. … The instant case is clearly distinguishable from Brubaker v.

Medora v. Colautti

602 F.2d 1149 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 24, 1979

Of course, any rule that withholds aid from qualified applicants preserves state funds. … The Supreme Court concluded: "The challenged classification clearly cannot be sustained by reference to this legislative purpose.

Giant Eagle Inc v. Commissioner IRS

822 F.3d 666 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 6, 2016

10-cent discount to its customers who had purchased qualifying groceries with their Advantage Cards. A. … only recalculate a taxpayer’s liabilities without respect to the accounting method regularly used in keeping his books if “no method of accounting has been regularly used by the taxpayer, or if the method used does not clearly

United States of America on Behalf of Its Agency Internal Revenue Service v. William H. Norton, Carrie W. Norton, F/k/a Carrie A. Woodward

717 F.2d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 12, 1983

Even that statute, which on its face seems to mandate the cancellation of mutual debts, has been interpreted as giving broad discretion to the courts and as recognizing setoff rights only “as established in common law and … Although the Code does not expressly distinguish the right of setoff and the exercise of that right, those who drafted that legislation clearly saw setoff as a right that should be preserved.

Hein v. Federal Deposit Insurance

88 F.3d 210 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 28, 1996

Put simply, the legal issues are clearly presented and ripe for review. … Under Unisys, Hein could not reasonably rely on such a conditional letter to establish a vested right to early retirement benefits, especially in the face of a written Plan document that clearly set out the requirements to

King v. Deputy Attorney General Delaware

616 F. App'x 491 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 11, 2015

, qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, and the Eleventh Amendment. … Under the circumstances, we conclude that King has not established plain error. Any error in failing to recuse, if any, was not egregious error, nor was there a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Eleanor Roseman v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, at Indiana

520 F.2d 1364 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 22, 1975

In particular, we rely on Findings of Fact 27, 28, 31, 32, 33 and 34, which establish that the anti-semitism reflected in plaintiff’s Exhibits 14, 15 and 17 played no part in the non-renewal decision. … These Findings were not clearly erroneous under F.R.Civ.P. 52. See note 7 below. See also 382 F.Supp. at 1337-38 . 4 .

Angel Thomas, Sr. v. Tyree Blocker

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jul 21, 2022

Irrespective of the merits of Appellants’ claims, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … State officials are granted immunity for civil damages if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Inmates of the Allegheny County Jail v. Wecht

874 F.2d 147 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 4, 1989

This finding is not clearly erroneous. The record established in 1980 that 10% to 30% of the jail population could be considered seriously mentally ill. … The court’s findings as to future inmate population establish the need for additional inmate capacity whether or not the old jail continues in use.

Lincoln Griswold v. Coventry First LLC

762 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Aug 11, 2014

He then established the Lincoln T. … immunity inquiry nor that there are ‘compelling reasons’ . . . that would justify invoking our rarely appropriate pendent appellate jurisdiction.”)

Vandermark v. Housing Authority of City of York

663 F.2d 436 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Oct 23, 1981

We agree with defendants that this provision clearly indicates that income and family composition are not necessarily the exclusive criteria to be used in determining eligibility for Section 8 housing. … Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78 , 31 S.Ct. 337, 340 , 55 L.Ed. 369 (1911)), it cannot be said that the classifications are "clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment."

Donovan v. Local 126, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

728 F.2d 610 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 5, 1984

Because no objection to the intervention was made at that time, we conclude that the union waived its constitutional provision establishing the period within which complaints could be lodged. … Therefore, the Secretary could not justify his position that internal union remedies were not completed until some six weeks after the union had clearly rejected the member’s challenge.

Heiner v. Gwinner

114 F.2d 723 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 9, 1940

We- agree with the conclusion of the trial judge that the witnesses were not shown to be qualified. … Upon their facts they are clearly distinguishable from the case before us. We think the plaintiff received the stock in 1930.

Judson C. Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corporation Quaker State Corporation

72 F.3d 326 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 14, 1995

In order to establish a prima facie case, Brewer must show that he: (1) is over 40; (2) is qualified for the position in question; (3) suffered an adverse employment decision; and (4) was replaced by a sufficiently younger … We cannot say the district court applied the incorrect legal standdrd, nor were its factual findings clearly erroneous.

Pension Transfer Corp. v. Beneficiaries Under the Third Amendment to Fruehauf Trailer Corp. Retirement Plan No. 003

444 F.3d 203 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 12, 2006

Under ERISA’s “anti-cutback” provision, benefits accrued in a qualified plan are irrevocable; an administrator or sponsor may not decrease them once they are granted. … We conclude, however, that the District Court did not clearly err in relying on Fruehauf’s own calculation of the cost of the Third Amendment.

United States v. Stephayne McClure-Potts

908 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Nov 8, 2018

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s finding that McClure-Potts did not qualify for the § 2L1.1(b)(1) three offense level reduction. B. … Samarin’s Testimony McClure-Potts contends that the District Court’s factual findings—where the District Court credited Samarin’s versions of the events rather than hers—was “clearly erroneous.”

Latta v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

212 F.2d 164 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Mar 24, 1954

The second is whether, if the regulation is valid, the trustees of this trust have a sufficient adverse interest to qualify under the terms of the regulation. … The committee reports show very clearly why it was omitted.

Allen v. City of York

128 F. App'x 261 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Apr 13, 2005

In an attempt to avoid section 1291's jurisdiction bar, defendants have couched their appeal in terms of their rights to qualified immunity. … And they claim that the statute of limitations defense is subsumed under qualified immunity.

In Re Revel AC, Inc.

802 F.3d 558 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Sep 30, 2015

(emphasis omitted); see also id. at 33 (describing Revel’s exhaustive search for a buyer that yielded only two qualified buyers). … Read on and realize that we are not immune from internal tensions in our opinions. .

Joshua Hill, Inc. v. Whitemarsh Township Authority

294 F.3d 482 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Jun 24, 2002

If abandonment of barrels qualifies as a release into the environment, then, surely, dumping of hazardous materials into a landfill does as well. … The district court found as a factual matter that there had been no release and the court of appeals held that the finding was not clearly erroneous. Id. at 648.